November 28, 2012

The former clients said they were emotionally scarred by false promises of inner transformation and humiliating techniques that included stripping naked in front of the counselor and beating effigies of their mothers. They paid thousands of dollars in fees over time, they said, only to be told that the lack of change in their sexual feelings was their own fault....

Since the 1970s, when mainstream mental health associations stopped branding homosexuality as a disorder, a small network of renegade therapists, conservative religious leaders and self-identified “life coaches” has continued to argue that it is not inborn, but an aberration rooted in childhood trauma. Homosexuality is caused, these therapists say, by a stifling of normal masculine development, often by distant fathers and overbearing mothers or by early sexual abuse.

There's a lot of ineffective counseling out there. At what point do you call it consumer fraud and dole out damages to the patients who volunteered for it and emerged with new problems or the same problems/nonproblems they began with?

“The defendants peddled antigay pseudoscience, defaming gay people as loathsome and deranged,” said Sam Wolfe, a lawyer with the [Southern Poverty Law Center].

In the mental health (and religion) field, where does the science end and the pseudoscience begin? Freudian therapy is pseudoscience, isn't it? How about getting all the psychiatrists of the world to cough up all the fees they've collected over the decades?

Obviously, Wolfe begins with the position that the perceived problem is not a problem, and he has no sympathy for those who offer to cure the nonproblem and is uninhibited in his efforts to pump up hatred of those terrible bigots. Loathsome! Deranged!

We can find more civil, moderate, and non-litigious approaches to ending the pain caused by these misguided attempts at reorienting sexuality. I recommend more science, more conversation, more intelligence, more empathy... for everyone.

137 comments:

Hmmm. Homosexual orientation is an unalterable biological imperative. No. Wait a minute, Queer Theory says that all gender is a socially-determined choice. No wonder people are confused. Homosexual activists can't even agree what's what, which ought to give the defense in this civil proceeding some really good stuff to work with.-----

There once was a faggot, named BloomWho had a lesbian up to his room.They spent the whole nightIn a terrible fightOver who would to what, and to whom.

The therapy providers aren't being sued because they were morally wrong. They're being sued because the therapy they peddled is alleged to be not efficacious.

If there was actually a therapy that could turn gay men straight, the Human Rights Campaign would be their biggest proponent. They could then recommend it for gays and lesbians who don't vote Democrat.

"Hmmm. Homosexual orientation is an unalterable biological imperative. No. Wait a minute, Queer Theory says that all gender is a socially-determined choice. No wonder people are confused. Homosexual activists can't even agree what's what, which ought to give the defense in this civil proceeding some really good stuff to work with."

This is why there's a big freedom of expression issue here. That's the problem -- a problem -- with the lawsuit. I think the answer must be more speech, not outlawing the speech between one person and another.

Some people, such as the SPLC, have managed very nearly to be so consistently wrong that simply contradicting whatever they say would put you on the side of reason.

I suspect that people who always and continually oppose one another no matter what have stopped thinking, so I don't like the idea that it's no longer necessary to think about what the SPLC says.

I'm damned if I can remember the last time they said anything that I didn't just disagree with, but that didn't sound to me like brazen hustling. Are we frozen in reflexive opposition or can it be true that a group of people can be so thoroughly perverse?

In the mental health (and religion) field, where does the science end and the pseudoscience begin? Freudian therapy is pseudoscience, isn't it

Yes, Fraudian (no slip there) psychoanalysis has no empirical basis as a therapy. Whatever benefit a patient gets from it is from having someone to talk to and listen to their problems. They would get the same benefit from talking to anyone with a modicum of common sense.

What about psychics? If they were held to the same standard, they'd be out of business. Yet, they proliferate despite the slightest of science behind their activities. And they are as unlicensed as these reparative therapists. Leave well enough alone, though I sympathize more with California's effort to bar such therapy for minors, who haven't necessarily volunteered for some of the oddball approaches Jonah engages in.

Obviously, Wolfe begins with the position that the perceived problem is not a problem, and he has no sympathy for those who offer to cure the nonproblem and is uninhibited in his efforts to pump up hatred of those terrible bigots. Loathsome! Deranged!

Obviously, the plaintiffs viewed their tendencies as a "problem" at some point before undergoing the therapy.

AFAIK the most currently accepted science on the subj of homosexuality holds that, for males, genetics is the driver for the majority, while for females lesbianism is a socially-determined choice for a significant majority (e.g., the formal recognition of the widespread existence of the "LUG" phenomenon--"Lesbians Until Graduation"--on college campuses) I should add that within the feminist academic community the very existence of large numbers of "feminist" academics who identify/present as Bi-Sexual presents great conceptual/ideological/scientific difficulties for those who hew to the "genetics-only" theory as an explanation for female sexual orientation..

You'd think people would see danger in the right of government to pronounce what is an acceptable treatment. But for some reason they seem to have faith that government will only and ever crack down on rightist controversies. I wonder why that is?

Alcoholics Anonymous has a dismal success record as therapy, yet it is heavily relied on by government and non-government authorities and is usually a requirement after many convictions involving alcohol.

I expect that most psychotherapy has a very poor success rate of less than 50%. It's the nature of having the organ in question work on itself.

Are people who have gay inclinations, but wish not to, just supposed to accept it? They have an issue that may make it impossible to have a family and children the way they want, but they are just supposed to accept that because other people want them too. It's a mirror of the bigotry that gays rail against.

I once heard a man give a testimony about changing from a homosexual lifestyle into a heterosexual lifestyle.

(Testimony, in the sense of a religious minister telling his own story of pyschological wounding, sin, repentance, change, and renewal. Not testimony in the sense of statements given before a court by a witness...)

While that particular man didn't talk too much about the counseling he'd received, he gave no hint of acting out violence towards anyone from his past. Nor did he verbalize any hatred towards his parents.

But the story is his, and not mine. And I'm not sure I can reproduce it fully.

On the point of law...is there any practice of psychology which can be considered consumer fraud?

Suppose a man wishes to go to a psychologist to deal with depression. If the man deems that the psychologist's methods were fraudulently represented to him, and that they have not cured his depression, how does a court deal with the claims?

What kind of expert witness is allowed? And can the psychologist testify in court without breaking whatever medical privacy laws are in place?

ending the pain caused by these misguided attempts at reorienting sexuality.

On the other hand, that's how Garage can get an A in the class in the thread below. Go to therapy and find your inner gay. If you're still straight at the end of the class, at least you can sue your therapist.

Gayness is easy to cure. Stop fucking dudes. That's it. You're cured.Now you may have urges to screw dudes, but you are a human being in control of your urges. Or should be.

This is coming from the position of someone who WANTS to be cured. If you're ok with screwing dudes, then there's no reason for a cure.But if you are going to a therapist to be cured of hOmosexuality then it's your behavior that has to be curtailed. And you can curtail your behavior by not doing it.An alcoholic may always be an alcoholic, but if he never drinks again then he's cured.

It's just amazing how the left tosses out thinkers when they are no longer PC.

Ultimately it's nihilism.

Why study sex or child development? Why develop a theory about human reproduction? Why assume that human reproduction is normal and other forms of sex is deviation from the norm?

Freud, one of the awesome intellects of the 20th century, is tossed aside as a fraud. There is no science. There is only PC! It's rather like burning books in the middle ages. You, Dr. Freud, have offended the great god PC!

"Hmmm. Homosexual orientation is an unalterable biological imperative. No. Wait a minute, Queer Theory says that all gender is a socially-determined choice. No wonder people are confused. Homosexual activists can't even agree what's what, which ought to give the defense in this civil proceeding some really good stuff to work with."

If psychotherapy is ever regulated so that individual practitioners must conclusively demonstrate that what they offer is more effective than counseling by an untrained individual then most psychotherapists will have to find another way to earn a living.

Therefore, an attempt to select a particular therapy as being ineffective- instead of noting that most psychotherapy is of unproven efficacy- seems obviously politically motivated.

Further, if an individual does truly wish to change sexual orientation and a professional agrees to help them do so, why would anyone feel a moral right to interfere with this voluntary association?

Finally, the "homosexuality is 100% hereditary" card has been overplayed. There are few-to-no complex human behaviors that are solely determined by heredity (instead of by a complex interaction between heredity and environment).

In any case, there are identical-twin studies which show that if one twin is homosexual, the probability that the other is also is about 50 percent. Which surely indicates that although heredity is a major factor here, it is far from the only factor.

But who needs freedom of choice (or even real science) when one can use the courts to punish behaviors that do not conform with PC-left ideology?

Just because a cure -may- work doesn't mean people are guaranteed it -will- work. If someone was selling them a guarantee, then it is possibly fraud. If they were being offered a treatment that might change them, then I find the claims for fraud hard to accept. It all matters on the sales pitch they were given, I guess.

I'll throw into the discussion the very interesting views of Gregory Cochrane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Cochran#Homosexuality that homosexuality is caused by an infectious agent! Exceedingly bright guy, former physicist, and he has no direct evidence. But the argument is hard to dismiss: Homosexuals are much less likely to have offspring than straight people, so why haven't they died out of the gene pool? It should only take a few generations.

So people who are heterosexual, but are not sexually active. Are they not really straight, because they are celibate?

You can stop engaging in homosexual activity and be very gay. I disagree with many types of sexual behavior, of any orientation. But what we can focus are things that matter. People suffer from too much loneliness, most people assume if you're in a sexual relationship or having sex, that loneliness is 'cured'.

"Would you say that authors who sell their books or comedians who sell tickets to their shows or newspapers that are sold are commercial speech and not protected?"

Haven't the courts held that commercial speech is required to be truthful? I thought this was the case. For example, if you claim that a detergent you are selling cleans blood stains off of cotton shirts, it actually has to do that.

Heterosexual men in prison are often gay while in prison but then when they get out go back to being heterosexual. But they could just as easily be celibate. If a hetero men could screw dudes, then homosexual men can screw women.And this is borne out by people I know. They were married for years and had a kid with a woman, but then come out as gay after years in the relationship.meaning, they were living as a non gay. Your urges are only urges unless you act on them.The question is do they want to deny that part of themselves. Many gays are proudly out and would find the idea that they would want to change to be offensive to them.They don't need a cure.I'm talking about the people that have gulit trips for being gay because its not consistent with their values.It would w the same thing with someone who identifies themselves as a sex addict. The cure for that is, stop having sex.i agree its easier said than done, and perhaps I have better impulse control,than many. But what are you, a slave to your urges?

"Homosexuals are much less likely to have offspring than straight people, so why haven't they died out of the gene pool? It should only take a few generations."

Other disorders also minimize the number of potential offspring, and yet they persist. It's entirely possible for homosexuality to be genetic and still ultimately curable - even if the cure has yet to be found.

I still voted for Question 6 (I think) in Maryland. Even if and when a cure is found, I don't think it should be forced on anyone, and if gays want to get married, what the heck do I care?

I just don't like the idea of pretending that a disorder isn't a disorder.

Obviously, Wolfe begins with the position that the perceived problem is not a problem, and he has no sympathy for those who offer to cure the nonproblem and is uninhibited in his efforts to pump up hatred of those terrible bigots.

This is why I love Althouse. Most people on the left just cry homophobia. And it's so easy to do that. Particularly if you know gay people and you love them. You love the gay people and so you hate your enemies.

It seems to me Althouse always strives to be above the fray. She pushes herself to rise above her instincts. She really tries to see her opponent's point of view. It's remarkable, truly.

We can find more civil, moderate, and non-litigious approaches to ending the pain caused by these misguided attempts at reorienting sexuality.

That's a polite way of saying that Althouse thinks sexuality cannot be altered. But of course a lot of people go gay in prison, when the opposite sex isn't available. Liberals skirt this by saying behavior has changed, but orientation remains fixed. But I think it's bizarre--I would call it "denial"--to engage in homosexual sex while claiming you are actually heterosexual. Or vice versa.

Nor can liberals explain all the other sexual orientations, such as pedophilia or beastiality. Will therapy not help those people? Can they not be fixed? Are they doomed?

Renee wrote:You can stop engaging in homosexual activity and be very gay. I disagree with many types of sexual behavior, of any orientation. But what we can focus are things that matter. People suffer from too much loneliness, most people assume if you're in a sexual relationship or having sex, that loneliness is 'cured'.

when I say cured, I don't mean literally cured. An alcoholic isn't technically "cured" he just doesn't drink.It's the behavior that is the problem.Now think about the idea of the need to cure gayness. If ou think you need a cure, then you think there is something wrong with your behavior. But if you're ok with gayness, then there's no need to cure anything. If you aren't happy with your behavior you either have to become ok with it or give it up. If its behavior it means you can choose to do or not do. Psychologists are good at treating compulsions like this. So I don't think they can knock the gay out of you. Bt they can certainly teach you to not act on your impulses.

If I claim that a therapy I'm peddling can turn gay men straight, then it's commercial speech. If it's a lie, then that speech is not protected. Is there some subtlety that invalidates this, Mrs. Constitutional Law Professor?

Why do people always assume bad motives on people they disagree with? Can't someone just have a really dumb idea? I don't assume that everyone who wants to restrict gun rights in America secretly goes into their basement to shoot off their illegal fully automatic assault weapons with abandon, so it seems wrong to assume that people who pitch this sort of nonsense are secretly gay.

Plus, why would you use being homosexual as a slur against people? Why are you engaging in homophobia Garage?

"If I claim that a therapy I'm peddling can turn gay men straight, then it's commercial speech."

-- That's why it matters on the claim; if it can, but did not in these cases, that's just bad luck. Sometimes, Oxyclean can't get a stain out. If you pitched it differently, then it might not be fraud. I wonder if there is anyone who the accused could pull out and say: "This guy will testify to being cured."

"Haven't the courts held that commercial speech is required to be truthful? I thought this was the case. For example, if you claim that a detergent you are selling cleans blood stains off of cotton shirts, it actually has to do that."

But in this case the product is itself speech. We're not talking about the speech that is the sales pitch for the product. We're talking about the product.

What is gay reperative therapists like Marcus Bachmann are really self-hating gays and they just want to make other gay people's life miserable too?

maybe there is something in the gay lifestyle that Marcus Bachman has a problem with. Maybe he doesn't think his urges for dick define him and are destructive.And if gays are seeking out cures, then their lives are already miserable because of their gayness.otherwise, they wouldn't.

I think it is a bullshit lawsuit. But it may be a fertile ground for litigation.

The basic remedy for any mistreatment by a licensed health care professional, including a mental health care professional, is a claim for malpractice. "Professional negligence."

If the plaintiffs are trying to run their case a consumer protection act claim, I think it ought to get thrown out. And it is evidence, to me at least, of the essential weakness of the claim that they would attempt that strategy.

In the world of malpractice litigation, there is a longstanding rule of common law that expert testimony is generally required (typical exception; leaving a surgical sponge in a patient, which even non-experts know is wrong), and that the testimony must prove a breach of the standard of practice.

A mere difference of opinion among treaters is not enough to prove a breach of the standard of practice. There can be different "schools of thought" about treatment among qualified experts.

In the case of the American Psychiatric Association, they decided to remove homosexuality-related disorders from the DSM, and to declare that homosexuality would no longer be regarded as a disorder and that treatment to cure homosexuality would be regarded as unethical. I have never been clear on the scientific basis for that declaration. I suspect that it had to do with the sociopolitical oreintation of the members of the APA as much as any data callection and scientific study.

Anwyay, I can't imagine how the civil rules governing the pleading and practice in malpractice actions won't trump any consumer protection claims. And if there were to be a malpractice claim, going to the core of psychological "science" for the treatment or non-treatment of homosexuality, than that, potentially, could present a kind of Scopes trial scenario.

This American Life (Public Radio International) did a very interesting story on the subject, by Alix Speigel, whose grandfather and father were prominent APA psychiatrists. That story was seemingly aimed at explaining how psychiatric treatment was cast into the dustbin of history. Contrary to what I expect was the intent of the story's creators, it left me thinking how purely political was the APA change in attitudes.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/204/transcript

I think a real Daubert hearing in a court of law with plenty of time and resources to devote to the subject would be very interesting. A serious evidentiary trial on the psychological science associated with homosexulity.

One thing would be certain; the APA, and academic psychologists and psychiatrists from all over, with lavish backing from liberal interest groups, would spare no effort and no level of reliance on prestigious academic credentialing to demonize their opponents.

"Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional expert and dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine, said, 'The law is clear that the government can prohibit health care practices that are harmful or ineffective.'

"If the court accepts the scientific evaluation put forward by the state, he said, 'the government is likely to prevail in the end.'"

What is Chemerinskky taling about? It is a civil case at issue, with four individual plaintiffs, represented by the well-funded and terribly misnamed "Southern Poverty Law Center." (The SPLC is a big liberal "public" interest law firm suing on liberal theories of law and promoting left wing causes throughout the country, with SPLC lawyers acting as quasi-official spokesmen on all manner of social issues.)

Two of their 5 statements:Endeavors to erode constraining definitions of masculinity which historically have inhibited men’s development, their capacity to form meaningful relationships, and have contributed to the oppression of other people.Acknowledges its historical debt to feminist-inspired scholarship on gender, and commits itself to the support of groups such as women, gays, lesbians and people of color that have been uniquely oppressed by the gender/class/race system.

A recent USA Today article outlined the most recent political agenda of the American Psychological Association. The lead paragraph summed it up:

“Those who make human behavior their business aim to make living ‘green’ your business.”

The APA has turned its eye toward curing global warming and wants to make sure that you are living your life correctly. Are you turning off your lights? Caulking your windows? Upgrading your furnace and your car? If not, the APA is out to make sure that you do. USA Today quotes APA president, Dr. Alan Kazdin:

“We know how to change behavior and attitudes. That is what we do.”

Don't expect science from the therapy/mental health "experts", but do expect a lot of left-leaning bias.

The "cure" sounds very suspect although people have reverted from homosexuality to heterosexuality (Evelyn Waugh, as an example), so they have a case, but I'm surprised those seeking the cure weren't sued by GLAAD or somebody for treason.

Of course there is biology and nature. We do reproduce and pass our genes to our offspring. Reproduction is why heterosexuality is the norm and other forms of sexuality are not.

So it makes sense to say that heterosexuality has a genetic component, that we are born that way. And it makes sense to study early sexual development and figure out why some people depart from the norm.

But this is where Christianity departs from Darwin and Freud. Christianity insists on free will, and a responsibility for what you say or do.

Biology is destinyIf you want it to be

That's exactly right. Free will is a gift from God, and gives us power over nature and biology.

-- Wow. In almost any other sense, if someone said something like that, it would be played as the creepiest, sleaziest thing ever. Imagine an ad guy writing about getting people to buy his client's products saying that, or a political spin master.

Garage mahal calls those who want to change their homosexuality self hating gays.What bout people who want to change their sex? They clearly are self hating, and yet garage I'm sure would say that we should be tolerant and accepting of their desire to change and not tell them to be happy as they are.If we are accepting of people changing their actual sex, including going so far as to changing their actual sexual organs, why is Garage Mahal so judgemental of gays who don't want to be gay?

"Other disorders also minimize the number of potential offspring, and yet they persist." As Cochran points out, all other known examples have one of three causes: 1) Very low probability mutations (<1/10000), 2) Supply some other important competitive advantage (mostly some kind of immunity to malaria, as in sickle cell anemia), or 3) infectious cause.

Why al this crazy? is it me or has anyone here met or know of gays who one day decided that being hetero is so boring and conformist that just for fun and rebellion they decided to be gay?

Is there a genetic component to being gay? Yes there apparently is. Is that component solely determinative? No it isn't. Are there epigenetic components to being gay? Maybe, no one knows. Are there conditions that can occur in gestation that can influence orientation? maybe, no one knows. Are there other factors that can result in being orientated to being gay. probably but those are not well understood. In other words what ever it is or combination of things are that orient someone in to being gay is probably extremely complex and not likely to be fully understood any time soon. So why obsess about it?

A long time ago there was a study done in which the concluded that a small percentage of people will always be heterosexual or homosexual no matter the circumstances and everyone else could under certain circumstances be attracted to (orientation) someone who they would not normally be attracted to in their ordinary circumstances. In short, why is the concept of a gay man who might have so bi-sexual attraction so difficult to understand? After all isn't the object of this 'therapy' to enable a gay man who has some bi-sexual tendencies to have an exclusive heterosexual relationship while not acting on homosexual impulses? Whether or not this is a good idea or not is above my pay grade and that decision is and should up to the individual to decide.

As for fraud, if this is the standard well most if not all professions would be deemed largely fraudulent since how often the does client ever gets told there isn't a chance in hell of you getting your desired outcome?

From both observation and experience, I assert that all sexuality is conditioned behavior.

As such, it is theoretically possible to re-condition your preferences and/or fetishes into something different.

However, the human brain has extremely strong defenses to preserve its status quo. Behaviors are self-reinforcing, like creasing a paper or water wearing a channel in soft earth.

Thus, when I say or hear that homosexuality is a choice, it is clear to me that "choice" is limited to response to an existing situation, and absolutely *not* total control (which is the connotation that 'homosexuality is not a choice' adherents assume).

Therapy to become heterosexual is absolutely possible, but also certainly difficult to achieve.

Claiming that homosexuality isn't a choice allows the self-pity wallowing and passive-aggressive hostility toward Christians and conservatives that Andy R. displays, which is why it is so attractive to the identity grievance crowd...no need to mature, no need to take responsibility for yourself, and you have a designated scapegoat to blame all your unhappiness on, instead of having to face up to the unhappiness created within your own being. Win-win!

From both observation and experience, I assert that all sexuality is conditioned behavior.

The left certainly thinks all sorts of gender roles and gender related behaviors are socially conditioned behavior. That's why we have feminists/psychologists/idiots insisting women act like men, men act like women, children be treated gender neutrally, women act like women when it's to the left's advantage, men still act like women (or be gay), boys be medicated to be passive like girls, etc, etc, round and round.

Dadvocate- Modern day psikhushkas for global warming dissenters? They can call me crazy or whatever they want, but I am not buying their bullshit. They're going to have to lock me up and put me in a straight jacket.

Yep. They purport to identify hate groups, but they're as much a hate group as any. Look at their shit on Christmas sometime. According to them, the only acceptable way for Christians to celebrate the Christian holy day of Christmas is to remove all Christian religious references in order not to offend any non-Christians. The SPLC hates Christians.

They hate anyone who disagrees with them on anything. They are right damn it, shut up, the end. There could not possibly be any reason other than hate that a person would believe in a procreative family building form of marriage.

All sexual behaviors, whether heterosexual, homosexual, bestial or other, are voluntary. The reason to distinguish between them, and then to classify them for rejection, tolerance, or normalization, is because there is only one objective standard: the natural order, and only one objective goal: evolutionary fitness, both of which are inviolable other than through short-term corruption.

Homosexual behavior is a dysfunctional behavior which is strictly antithetical to evolutionary fitness. Its dysfunctional nature is not corrected by the emergence of technology with limited capacity to override the natural order or to satisfy self-interest. If we abide by this objective standard, then its consensual practice can be tolerated until it reaches some critical mass in a population; but, there is no legitimate reason to normalize it.

The arguments to normalize a dysfunctional behavior are based exclusively on self-interest and complete disregard for any objective standard. They progress through legal and emotional extortion. Who, after all, wants to harsh someone's mellow? However, that's not the only motivation. Men and women who are do not engage in homosexual behavior or not exclusively so, are also interested in a path to normalization of dysfunctional behaviors.

Nature versus nurture is a consideration. But it doesn't really matter --it could be a result of either or both. And it doesn't help at all in answering the main underlying question: is homosexuality a normal or abnormal condition?

I know how gays and those advocating for gay rights would answer the question, but that's not dispositive either. It's just a biased opinion.

What if God made gay people in order to spot the assholes that hate them easier?

You might reflect on how vicious liberals are when a Republican is gay.

All you have to do is be a Republican. And all of a sudden this vat of identity politics comes down on your head, like a sewer. You want to see how liberals feel about gay people? Or black people? Or women?

Listen to what they say about Republicans. Nothing is off limits. Nothing is out of bounds. They now have permission to let all their secret hates out, and it's a flood of racism, sexism, and homophobia.

So that's what your party does, garage. Because your party doesn't give a shit about any of that stuff. What your party cares about--what your party is all about--is attacking Republicans as evil. Racism, sexism, homophobia, it's all a meaningless and stupid game that allows liberals to engage in their favorite activity, which is hating on Republicans.

DADvocate,I hope you are not conflating my views of sexuality as conditioned behavior with that of liberals claiming gender roles are socially-conditioned.

First, I said nothing about social conditioning. Social conditioning may have a small effect, but nowhere near a primary effect.

The conditioning response is the sexual arousal and the orgasm itself, but especially the orgasm.

That's how fetishes are developed.

Second, I believe that evolution strongly favors heterosexuality as a default. But sometimes things go wrong, so that the default cannot be assumed. Evolution also strongly favors male OR female genitalia, but sometimes people are born with both, or neither, or a mix of underdeveloped genitals, no? But changing sexuality is much less invasive than the traumatic surgery and hormone therapy necessary to change sexual plumbing.

So even before the first orgasm, a per-adolescent brain has already started forming some notion of what is sexually stimulative. The first orgasm confirms that, and the neural paths are established. The longer it goes, the stronger the conditioning.

That's why homosexuality and hedonism are associated, even though the association is probably more correlational than causal...although certainly not universally limited to that, of course.

Okay, I've taken this thought way too far. But I want it clear that I don't buy into social conditioning being a major cause of a any fundamental characteristic, although I don't deny it is an extremely minor influence on very nearly everything.

So that's what your party does, garage. Because your party doesn't give a shit about any of that stuff. What your party cares about--what your party is all about--is attacking Republicans as evil. Racism, sexism, homophobia, it's all a meaningless and stupid game that allows liberals to engage in their favorite activity, which is hating on Republicans.

I went a little overboard there, my bad. There are principled liberals, after all, including garage.

The APA succumbed to the pressure, call it political if you will, of radical gay activists in the mid seventies. They changed their views almost over night at the threat of being hounded and harassed by Act Up, Larry Klein etc.

Since then there has been very little genuine science devoted to homosexuality. Science being data driven and without preconceived outcomes.

The notion or construct of a sexual identity is relatively new. Prior to the latter 1800s homosexuality was seen as a behavior. As sexual morays were questioned as western culture moved into the scientific modern age the notion of an over-arching sexual identity developed and was bolstered by the Freudian notions of behavior coming from deeper urges which shaped personality and mental disorders.

The issue of sexuality in western culture is another area where liberals thrive on destruction of tradition and the ensuing chaos that inevitably results. The arc of history for them always bends toward the destruction of Judeo-Christian virtues and beliefs. Their faith is that whatever emerges from the chaos will, and simply must be better than it's Judeo-Christian western predecessor. When it turns out to be a disaster they blame traditionalists and throw money at the ever expanding number of people who need the safety net they will provide and manage. Think in terms of the destruction of the two parent family as one great example.

I hope you are not conflating my views of sexuality as conditioned behavior with that of liberals claiming gender roles are socially-conditioned.

The process of conditioning may happen is a variety of settings and manners. If a behavior is a conditioned behavior it is a behavior that is learned. This is true for any sort of conditioning, social or otherwise.

I'm saying that the same people that claim much, if not all, of our gender specific behavior is due to conditioning, usually social conditioning, also claim that the deviation from that gender specific behavior is not learned, i.e. not due to conditioning. A paradox.

Personally, I don't know the roots of homosexual behavior and don't care. But, this lawsuit is simply more of the left ramming their belief system down our throats because they're obsessed with things being rammed down throats.

You may or may not consider my point a conflation. There is a parallel in the "is learned/isn't learned" paradox of the enlightened ones.

An alcoholic may always be an alcoholic, but if he never drinks again then he's cured.

You don't even realize the contradiction here. Alcoholics are never cured. They can work to stop the behavior, sometimes succeed at that, but the urge to drink remains, which it usually does, they are still alcoholic, whether they take another drink in their lives or not.

The same is true for gay people. Even if you get married, have kids and all that - if you're a man and you still have the sexual desire to be with other men, even if you've never acted to serve those desires... Sorry, you're gay.

Oh, and a few people could use a remedial course in biology and genetics. If the genetic factors that cause the gay variation are recessive and are primarily on the X chromosome, it will get passed down from one generation to the next even if the trait is never triggered by the other contributing genetic factors. And like eye color, which has at least six genes determining that trait, gayness probably isn't caused by a single gene, rather depends on a series of them being at the right place at the right time, so to speak.

They don't hate white people. It just happens that white people are the majority in this nation and proportionately control a majority of the wealth. A wealth which is ripe for the picking when democratic leverage can be exerted.

The SPLC operational model is to commit extortion and exploitation in order to advance its employees' political, economic, and social standing. Their perceived aversion to white people is not strictly personal. It is a means for degenerate individuals or merely self-interested fanatics to elevate their condition in this world.

It's just another business, which happens to be engaged in unproductive pursuits to benefit its owners, first, and employees, second. Review "Amnesty International" to better understand the mechanics of this scheme.

SPLC is profiting from a reactive response to real and perceived past transgressions. While the original response was principled, its perpetuation is not, and has predictably sponsored progressive corruption of individuals and institutions.

The APA seems to suggest that men are incapable of self-moderating behavior. Do you recall the campaign in the 80s and 90s, which accused men of the same, and presumed men guilty of sexual harassment?

These are leading arguments. Consider that individuals incapable of self-moderating behavior are not eligible for liberty. The APA seems to be arguing for selectively restricting men's liberty or corrupting their nature through domestication, which they justify by the extreme behavior of outliers. Does that sound familiar? This is the same model followed by so-called human and civil rights businesses, including the SPLC, and with the same motivations.

"While the original response was principled, its perpetuation is not."I think you're right on target about this. It seems to be true about a lot of things. As soon as an economic or power benefit is realized things that originally had a decent point become caricatures of themselves. Unions are a notable example and higher education is to be that way.

"Hmmm. Homosexual orientation is an unalterable biological imperative. No. Wait a minute, Queer Theory says that all gender is a socially-determined choice. No wonder people are confused. Homosexual activists can't even agree what's what, which ought to give the defense in this civil proceeding some really good stuff to work with."

This is why there's a big freedom of expression issue here. That's the problem -- a problem -- with the lawsuit. I think the answer must be more speech, not outlawing the speech between one person and another.

So in effect, what you are saying is that this big freedom of expression issue is that gender/sexual identity is fluid. You can enter it and exit it either at will or under whatever condition you like as a function of the ability to freely express yourself at any time.

Exactly. Progressive corruption is not merely a well-conceived pun. It describes the process by which corruption evolves. That's why when we agree to compromise our principles, we must always be concerned with sponsoring corruption, which is caused by a dissociation (or shifting) of risk.

AFAIK the most currently accepted science on the subj of homosexuality holds that, for males, genetics is the driver for the majority, while for females lesbianism is a socially-determined choice for a significant majority (e.g., the formal recognition of the widespread existence of the "LUG" phenomenon--"Lesbians Until Graduation"--on college campuses) I should add that within the feminist academic community the very existence of large numbers of "feminist" academics who identify/present as Bi-Sexual presents great conceptual/ideological/scientific difficulties for those who hew to the "genetics-only" theory as an explanation for female sexual orientation..

Neither premises of which have any basis in empirical or analytic theories on how these conditions originate thus far. This current 'science' is mere speculation since it's accepted that it's biologically driven, but in yet some unknown way. A genetic component for male/female homosexuality has not been found or even been hinted at. Neither has bi-sexuality and yet for all of these conditions they are perpetuated into the societal fabric as being 'fact or supposed fact' without any scientific basis for any of it. At this point, they are biological mysteries if not mythology.

If the genetic factors that cause the gay variation are recessive and are primarily on the X chromosome, it will get passed down from one generation to the next even if the trait is never triggered by the other contributing genetic factors.

And as soon as the gene expresses itself, the line dies out. Because gay people don't reproduce. Darwin 101.

The genetic argument is incredibly weak. No scientific evidence. Not even any rigorous discussion. The gay gene is just a "truth" that is dictated to us in the name of wishful thinking.

I know it seems unfair to say that homosexuals don't reproduce. But they don't. Seriously. It's not going to happen.

Pretending men and women are just alike is bad enough. But pretending homosexuals and heterosexuals are the same, it's a farce. It's horrible science.

Darwin tells us about the importance of breeding. There are breeders and non-breeders. Nature prefers the former.

Yes? Am I misreading Darwin?

And this point works with celibates, too. It's a scientific criticism, not a moral one. There is little or no science here at all. And yet the gay gene is said to be a fact that we cannot question.

I just find the hypocrisy of liberals so amusing. You have Darwin stickers on your cars, while you tell us all about your theories of the non-breeding gay gene.

No, sorry, liberals use Darwin to prop up the atheist version of the birth of humanity. And you throw Darwin under the bus when we're talking about homosexuality. It's an entirely politicized view of science.

"If I claim that a therapy I'm peddling can turn gay men straight, then it's commercial speech."

Ignoring whether or not it's commercial speech- even if one were to stipulate that it is, I can't imagine any psychotherapist claiming a 100 percent success rate (at least if "success" has a meaningful definition) in treating anything.

And, in many cases psychotherapists can't even cure stuff that's recognized as an illness in the DSM. For example, bipolar disorder can be managed with drugs, but the underlying disorder is not cured.

I'd guess that what the therapists promise is the possibility that some of their gay patients who'd rather be straight can learn to live as straight men and perhaps even enjoy doing so.

If that promise is a lie, does that mean you can prove that "some" is actually "zero" (or infinitesmally small)? How small must "some" be before you'd be willing to say it's dishonest?

Shouting, the goal posts moving are not to prove that we love gay people rather it is part of the chaos. The goal posts are moved and we are to embrace the change to prove that we are of "The Enlightened."

It's unfortunate that the title of his best-known work is "Beyond Freedom and Dignity."

But ultimately behaviorism and behavior modification is just a tool, to be used for good or ill.

For example, behavior mod. can be quite effective for weight loss- which is impressive, as diets and whatnot have pretty dismal success rates. And behavior mod. can be used by individuals who choose to modify their own behavior (presumably while retaining their freedom and dignity).

Looking forward to suing my educational institutions and a few choice teachers for selling me the useless, self-defeating ideology of Marxist collectivism, and for sometimes having me sing with others - too young to know better - crappy Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger songs, to boot. Maybe the Catholic Church too, peddling its collectivist clap-trap, now apparently to be enforced by secular states instead of the church itself.

I kept trying and trying but others just weren't willing to give me enough of their property to fulfill me while I laid about. What a rip-off.

I scrolled to the end to make a his comment as a a practicing clinical psychologist, in the mental health field for over 30 years. If someone has already made this point, I thank them.

It is standard practice to have patients sign an "Informed Consent" that indicates there is no guaranteed outcome in psychotherapy. Patients cannot sue if the doctor does not make them better. On the other hand, psychologists cannot guarantee outcomes. None of this has anything to do with specific issues, such as gender identity or the like. If you enter psychotherapy, it's NOT like like buying a vacuum cleaner from Amazon. There are no returns or refunds, unless your therapist asks to sleep with you or one of your family members.

I scrolled to the end to make a his comment as a a practicing clinical psychologist, in the mental health field for over 30 years. If someone has already made this point, I thank them.

It is standard practice to have patients sign an "Informed Consent" that indicates there is no guaranteed outcome in psychotherapy. Patients cannot sue if the doctor does not make them better. On the other hand, psychologists cannot guarantee outcomes. None of this has anything to do with specific issues, such as gender identity or the like. If you enter psychotherapy, it's NOT like like buying a vacuum cleaner from Amazon. There are no returns or refunds, unless your therapist asks to sleep with you or one of your family members.

" But of course a lot of people go gay in prison, when the opposite sex isn't available."

That is a lot of the reason why homosexual sex was common in classical Greece. Women were kept in harems, like Muslims. Homosexual behavior is rampant in the Muslim world and they go to a lot of trouble (like stoning people to death) to deny it. British soldiers complained of being pestered by Afghan transvestites. It is almost universal in the Muslim world but don't tell Ahmadinnerjacket.

Sex is sex. Don't tell Ahmadinnerjacket The only difference is the orifice.

Yeah, but that's a huge difference. Since regular ol' sex leads to babies. And sodomy does not.

This is why the idea that homosexuality is really no different from heterosexuality is absurd. There's a big fucking difference, namely how straight sex leads to babies, all the time. And it's worth stating the obvious because so many smart people seem oblivious to it.

It is almost universal in the Muslim world but don't tell Ahmadinnerjacket.

Sex is sex. Don't tell Ahmadinnerjacket The only difference is the orifice.

Dinnerjacket will tell you that there are no homosexuals or homosexuals problems in Iran. Know why? They kill them wherever they find them. I'm sure the velvet mafia in the US is getting ready to deploy their troops for an gay insurgent strike into Iran anytime now. Oh wait.

"Freudian therapy is pseudoscience, isn't it?"Not according to statistical evidence*. 'Freudian therapy,' referred to as psychoanalysis, was more effective than shorter treatments at the end of 5 years in the study.

The problem is that they don't care. Their only interest in evolution is to use it as a prop to club competing interests, which in America are primarily Christians, on the head.

Some people don't care because there are "enough" people in the world. Some people don't care because their interest in life ends with their short-term existence. Some people don't care because it challenges normalization of their behavior. Some people don't care because it is the voluntary commission of generational suicide, which is an ideal way to remove undesirables or competing interests. Some people don't care because their interest is limited to democratic leverage.

The pro-choice class of people are an evolution of the eugenics, "Roe vs Wade", and, ultimately, the euphemistic "reproductive rights" movements. This desire to enjoy instant gratification without perceived consequences is also exhibited in their economic policies. They either don't understand or care why their policies serve to denigrate individual dignity and devalue human life. They don't appreciate that their policies create a dissociation of risk, which is the principal sponsor of corruption.

Anyway, this is the greed, lust, envy, etc. typically attributed to the so-called "1%", but has been encouraged to become pervasive throughout society. The corruption of the rich is indistinguishable from the corruption of the poor, and progressive throughout. We are quickly approaching a critical mass where progressive corruption becomes conclusive corruption.

The second orifice that is not made for sexual activity, but can accommodate it with a minimum of difficulty.

The first two orifices have actual evolved defenses to prevent disease transmission, and studies have demonstrated chemical benefits of sexual activity using those orifices.

The the third orifice that is not made for sexual activity; and in fact, extended use of that orifice for sexual activity results in significant damage and degradation of its natural function of waste elimination. It has no defense for disease transmission and may actually increase disease transmission.

So if there is a mental state that prefers using the third orifice for sexual activity, how is it improper at all to assume that mental state is not fully healthy?

And as soon as the gene expresses itself, the line dies out. Because gay people don't reproduce. Darwin 101.

Not only is that not "Darwin 101", it's not science. The genes, plural, not singular, are there, they just are not expressed if they are not all paired, or epigenetic factors occurring within the womb or even after birth, can determine which genetic traits are expressed or not, or to a degree.

And then there is the argument that gayness can't be genetic because we haven't found any genes that cause it. This is why I brought up eye color. Thought that has been one of the most often used examples to show that traits are a product of genetics, only in the last 12 years or so have scientists figured out the exact location of the genes that contribute to eye color. And note, it's not one gene, but a combination of them - genes.

Somehow this is similar to the scam of the student loan industry. There's a lot of ineffective career preparation out there - complete with false promises and buyer beware. At what point do you call it fraud? How about if it's a cheesy online school that clearly exists *only* for the loans.

It's a continuum, but even the best collude to artificially hold supply down to keep it 'elite' and therefore pricey and worth something on the after-market. Don't get me started on the forced purchase of overpriced textbooks scam - maybe ipads will take care of that.

But in the end you're left with the fact that our economy cannot support an entire workforce of upper middle class lawyers, bankers, etc - but it promises that if you get your education. Some of the people who are crying for more H1-B visas want to pay citizens $12.50 an hour while requiring a much more intensive degree than law. There has to be a bottom limit in how much skilled and unskilled workers can be shat upon.